I know that since I'm from Illinois, I'm supposed to naturally go for Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. For a long time I resisted, but last night Barack Obama's candidacy for the nomination won my support. Barring any unforeseen events, on February 5th I will cast my ballot in the Illinois Democratic general primary for Barack Obama to be the nominee of the Democratic party for the office of President.

Every Friday evening in DeKalb, Illinois two groups gather at the corner of First Street and Lincoln Highway. One group proclaims its allegiance to peace and justice. The other proclaims support for the nation and to patriotism.

It's not that the two goals of peace and patriotism are opposing. We as a nation have been brought to believe that to be patriotic one must be aggressive in defending the country -- that we must show military strength in order to defend ourselves.

I disagree with this notion of strength. I believe we can have strength through peace.

Strength through peace means bringing out the best of human nature. Peace encourages love and hope, whereas force panders to hate and fear. We all hope for a better future, we should start living that future. The biggest obstacle towards a better future is ourselves, but it doesn't have to be that way. We can make this world a better place for not only ourselves, but for our children, and generations to come.

Strength through peace means knowing that we no longer promote the kind of international animosity that causes us to spend more on our military than all other nations in the world combined. With strength through peace, we allow our government to perform the duties of promoting the general welfare of our nation, of providing for domestic tranquility, and of ensuring that the United States is a land of opportunity based upon the notion that all shall have an equal chance at a better future.

Strength through peace means that the United States shall once again be seen as a shining example of what people, when given a chance to determine their own future, can accomplish. We hold that people are not inherently evil, that government of the people, by the people, and for the people is a noble and accomplishable goal. People are at their best when their best is asked of them. People are at their worst when the worst is expected of them.

We hold that there are no just wars, only necessary defenses. All wars are acts of aggression where the initiating party is acting unjustly. War is despicable. It is worth noting that during war, everyone looks forward to the end. When a country does not use peace as a guiding principle, war becomes inevitable, and necessary for self-defense from an aggressor. Going beyond defense during wartime increases the likelyhood of prolonged war and makes lasting peace harder to attain.

Patriotism is love and devotion to one's country. I hold that regardless of the side of the street on which we stand, we are both patriots. Deep down, we both want lasting peace. We just disagree on how to achieve it.

Thoughout one's life, one is faced with the oppressing reality that there are those with greater power and influence than oneself.

Those with power seek to increase their power. To maintain and appease this thirst, others are used as if they were nothing more than a means.

It is no coincidence that power gets driven into the hands of the few at the expense of the many. But eventually the great masses realize that they have a strength that cannot be diminished but only increased by their oppression.

Sympathy becomes empathy. Apathy turns into drive. The people desire to be heard. They wish to restore justice.

I have no doubt that people are generally good. To achieve oppression, the Unjust coach their language in terms of right and wrong; moral and immoral. They must, for if they did not, the conscience of the individual and the collective would not allow the injustice.

Achieving independence from the British crown started the United States down the long path towards a government which acts as the instrument of the governed.

The tables were turned. The people became the sovereigns. Checks were put into place to ensure that the corrupting power of one government institution was balanced by the power of others. Above all, through the democratic process, the people became the ultimate check against their tool.

The Bill of Rights acknowledged that certain behavior shall not morph the peoples' government into a weapon of their oppression. Even during the enactment of the Bill of Rights, concern was given to the possibility that listing certain rights would threaten those rights left unmentioned. The response was the 9th Amendment which states:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Constitution acts as a protector of the people against the "tyranny of the majority." But the people are generally good, I said! Yes, but even those who mean well can go astray.

Even as far back as ancient Athens it has been known that in a democracy, the people may be led to conclusions contrary to their own self-interests. Thucydides recognized this when he questioned whether Athens, under the rule of Pericles, was really a democracy at all. Such a good leader was Pericles that he was repeatedly elected, but the people through his leadership had effectively lost their popular sovereignty.

The Anti-administration party which would later become the Democratic-Republicans recognized this threat. A strong central government was a means by which control could be rested from the people.

The Democratic Party that emerged from the Democratic-Republicans is an expression of the peoples' will.

The anti-abolitionist and later pro-segregationist Democrats of the South were wrong, but this was not concluded until all of the peoples' voices were heard, including the blacks.

The Democratic Party has become the means by which power is restored to the people. We hold as our chief responsibility to ensure that the people, from whom government derives its power, remain free.

This has meant opposing a central bank to protect from the moneyed interests of 19th-century New England, to enacting civil rights legislation providing for equal opportunity regardless of race, religion, sex or age.

We oppose the reach of a tyrannical executive and the corrupting influences of a corporate-run media. We believe in the great power of an educated public to make the right choice.

We are a party of activists each trying in our own way, and with our own vote to make the world a better place; for us, for our brethren, and for our children.

We are all leaders, guiding this great nation to perform its duty for its citizens.

We believe in the power of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The people have as their device the government by which to achieve a greater society, and we, the Democratic Party, believe in our leaders: the people.

Electoral Reform

• Standardized national paper ballot and vote by mail
• Working elections is considered a civic duty like jury duty
• Everybody is allowed to watch the votes be counted
• Approval voting is instituted (choose the candidate or candidates of which you approve, may select more than one candidate in the same race)
• Nationalized ballot access laws for national offices (Congressional offices and President)
• Presidential elections based on popular vote

For the past year, I've worked on the campaign of John Laesch. I was never under the assumption that defeating the income-bent Speaker of the House would be easy. Nevertheless, I was upset when I found out that John lost the election.

John's campaign slogan was "Revive the American Dream!" Now, I would say that the principle American ethic is to leave the world a better place for our children. Nearly all of us want our children to be better off than we are.

Building on this, the American Dream is a dream of hope. Things can and do get better, no matter how bad we have it. The patriots threw off the British rule. The abolitionists succeeded in bringing the South back into the Union and ending slavery. Oligopolies and monopolies were busted. Fascism was defeated. Social services were instituted. Things get better. There is hope for our future.

I say that I won in this election because John Laesch brought hope. I won because when I stepped into the voting booth to fill-in my ballot, I cast my vote for whom I thought was best fit to serve the office. I won because I had the privilege of voting for Jonathan "John" Laesch. Never before had I ever been as excited and proud to vote.

I won because I was able to volunteer for John, to feel like I was an integral part of a team bent on reviving and fulfilling the American Dream.

I won because through the campaign I made many new friends: Carolyn, both the Joes, Ben, Laura, Dick, Lisa, Steve, Jim, Jimi, Sue, Robyn, Onyx, and John Laesch and his lovely fiancée Jen. Thank you all. I would gladly do it all over again.

Thanks for the hope.

I am from the very Republican, very Conservative town of Jacksonville, Illinois. In our local newspaper, the Journal Courier, we have a section on the back page called the "Open Line" where people can call in and voice their opinions on different matters. During one such opinion, a caller refered to the Democrats as the "anti-American Democrats". The following is my Letter to the Editor in response:

I am a Democrat. From a recent comment in the Open Line, it appears that at least one person thinks this makes me anti-American. I, however, beg to differ.

Mr. Speaker,

Since we are a nation of laws, we must see to it that the laws are upheld and applied equally to all citizens. That principal is what this nation was built on; it is for what our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

And it is in this great legislative body that we are charged with making the laws that govern our nation. To permit the chief executive enforcing those laws to cast them aside as he pleases would, in effect, sanction such actions. To do nothing would be to place a stamp of approval on illicit conduct and transfer power to the executive branch, thus upsetting the system of checks and balances devised by the Framers. It would cheapen the law, which, in turn, would cheapen the work by this House.

Last night I had the misfortune of having a nightmare that made sense. I am a volunteer for the John Laesch campaign. John Laesch is working to unseat incumbent and current House Speaker Dennis Hastert in the Illinois 14th Congressional District. In the dream, I had the revelation that given the fact that animal right's protesters have been deemed terrorists by the Bush administration, that political dissidents or political opponents might also be.

I have taken part in two protests while I've been at Northern Illinois University. Revelations that the NSA has been performing warrantless wiretapping of American citizens make me worry that I might become a target of such unwarranted wiretapping.

After the 2000 presidential election in which Ralph Nader garnered a whopping 2.7 percent of the popular vote, and as high as 10.1 percent of a state's popular vote in Alaska, Democrats were blasting the Green Party and Ralph Nader for the loss of Al Gore. They claim that Nader took enough votes away from would-be Gore supporters that Nader cost Gore the election.

Although, it wasn't that long ago that Ross Perot was getting 18.9 percent of the popular vote, and as high as 30.44 percent of a state's popular vote in Maine. Many Republicans believe that Perot acted as a spoiler to George H.W. Bush, casting the election to Bill Clinton.

I was reading in the Northern Star Wednesday a Letter to the Editor made by the NIU College Republicans. They were challenging the College Democrats to a debate. During the course of the letter they mentioned socialism and pointed to the fall of Eastern Europe as evidence that socialism does not work. Bringing up socialism in context with a debate against Democrats was meant to equate the Democratic agenda with socialism. This is a classic scare tactic that prevents the US from moving forward with nearly all other industrialized nations in assuring all citizens a base standard of living.